After 74 Days In Custody Following His Failure To Appear, Madras HC Grants SC/ST Act Accused Bail With Daily Reporting

Following a complaint by the third respondent, an FIR was registered against the petitioner and others under provisions of the IPC and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

After the petitioner failed to appear for trial, a non-bailable warrant was issued on 5 August 2023; the case against him was split and taken on file as Spl.S.C.No.9 of 2026.

The warrant was executed on 17 August 2026, and the petitioner was remanded to judicial custody. The trial court dismissed his subsequent bail application.

He withdrew an appeal against that dismissal after the High Court observed that his earlier bail had not been cancelled, and obtained liberty to challenge the remand order.

He then sought to set aside that order, arguing that the trial court had not considered his explanation for absence or recorded forfeiture of his bond.

By the time of the present decision, he had been in custody for nearly 74 days, and the de facto complainant did not oppose bail.

Section 528 of the BNSS preserves the High Court’s inherent power to make orders necessary to give effect to the Sanhita, prevent abuse of process, or secure the ends of justice; it is not a substitute for ordinary bail provisions or a statutory appeal.

Section 478(2) BNSS permits refusal of bail to an accused who has failed to comply with attendance conditions, even in a bailable case, while Sections 491 and 492 address bond forfeiture and cancellation following breach.

Under Pillappan @ Ravikumar v. State, 2018 (3) CTC 156, the accused should be given an opportunity to explain non-appearance, and the court should consider the explanation and record a finding regarding forfeiture; however, failure to follow that procedure does not, without more, render a subsequent remand void or without jurisdiction.

The court also referred to Talab Haji Hussain v. Madhukar Purshottam Mondkar, AIR 1958 SC 376, and Rasiklal v. Kishore, (2009) 4 SCC 446, for the principle that an initial entitlement to bail does not entitle an accused to disregard the conditions of the bond.

The petitioner’s earlier bail did not, by itself, make his later remand unlawful after he failed to attend court and was produced following execution of a non-bailable warrant.

Although the trial court ought to have followed the procedural safeguards in Pillappan, the omission to record the petitioner’s explanation and a formal finding of forfeiture did not nullify the remand order.

The court therefore declined to set aside the remand. It nevertheless considered that the petitioner had already spent nearly 74 days in custody, his presence before the trial court had been secured, and further detention should not become punitive.

Given those circumstances and the complainant’s lack of objection, the court found release on stringent conditions appropriate under Section 528 BNSS.

Bail was ordered on a bond of ₹25,000 with two sureties for the like sum, subject to identity verification, reporting before the trial court at 10:30 a.m. on all working days, non-interference with witnesses or evidence, and a condition not to abscond.

The trial court may take action in accordance with law for breach of conditions; the petition was allowed on those terms.